>With those whose rebellion forbids from them a life worthy of being lived; they at the mercy of that same force against themselves are strangled horribly.wtf did he mean by this? need some help here.
>>24843543Source?
>>24843543One of the biggest Ls for this movie was the note wasn't written with a typewriter. That would've meshed better with the secret society's aesthetics.>>24843579Eyes Wide Shut (dir. Stanley Kubrick)
>>24844101>Eyes Wide Shut (dir. Stanley Kubrick)For the quote though
>>24844104why? just tell me what the mfer meant please
>>24845793Geez. Not with that attitude.
>>24843543Trying to Google the quote only brings up this thread while Google's AI is saying that you're misquoting de Maistre. Where did you actually get it?
>>24845937why does it matter so much what the source is? :(i just need help understanding it
>>24845952Because the source might give some context to the quote. Right now, the second part of your sentence just isn't clear. Is it the original English text and not some kind of machine translation?
>>24845972from what I understand, it's the original, yes.
>>24845984As I understand it: "People who dedicate their entire life to rebellion are themselves suffocated by their own passionate efforts"
>>24846003okay. thank you very much
How'd you get aholt of m'diary, anon?
>>24843543Isn't that semicolon supposed to be a comma?
>>24846039how could it be your diary? i wrote that.the reason i asked is that i subscribe to the idea that the author is dead, and what i intend is not what is interpreted.here is the author's proposed meaning for anyone interested:>that is to say, a man prone to rebellion must not be surprised to find he cannot control himself
>>24846058no, semicolons are too versatile not to use them however the fuck i want. read more and you'll find the so called rules regarding the semicolon are all but ignored by the greatest writers in history.
>>24846064I hate you.
>>24846069nobody panics when McCarthy excretes thousands of pages of unpunctuated words; but the moment a semicolon is used freely, everyone loses their minds!
>>24846090To be fair, he's grammatical by using the ands
>>24846090McCarthy is emulating crudeness, midwit.
>>24846116>muh crudityseethe, my son. seethe.
I watched The Shining for Halloween these last two days and I can absolutely see from that that Kubrick might have had some familiarity with occult practices. Perhaps Masonic, too.
>>24846131https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ivRWVtCqhw&pp=0gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD
>>24846126Typical midwit nonreply
>>24846168why would i bother spending an ounce of effort on you? besides, you're wrong and that comes from the horse's mouth.https://www.openculture.com/2013/08/cormac-mccarthys-punctuation-rules.htmlin fact, you have the exact opposite opinion. he clearly saw punctuation as inelegant.>James Joyce is a good model for punctuation. He keeps it to an absolute minimum. There’s no reason to blot the page up with weird little marks. I mean, if you write properly you shouldn’t have to punctuate.so, again, why the fuck should i waste time on you when you don't even bother to inform yourself? in summation; fuck off, pissant.
>>24846168>gets assblasted>vanishes foreverwhat did xe mean by this?
>>24843543Ah reading the thread and discovering that it's your OC, I can safely say that this is retarded pseud bullshit.
>>24846449Why?
>>24846452It's a gross generalization meant to dissuade rebellion. Take the case of someone who was forced into a situation not worth living, then they rebel. It could look to those on the outside exactly like what OP describes, even though for the rebel there is no real choice - their life wasn't worth living in the first place, and perhaps rebellion is the only way they've been able to improve their situation, as in the case of fighting off a familial abuser. OP's post, paired with the schizo vagueposting and the Eyes Wide Shut letter make the purpose of this thread suspect. This isn't a thread about literature.
>>24846459What is this thread about then?
>>24846459Interesting take on my little aphorism. I would say you're fine to voice these concerns in a revolutionary sense, but I mean a different, more stubborn sort of rebel. A creature who has bitten every feeding hand, every gentle chide. No, I mean the unreasonable git. That he is tormented by this outfacing rebellion is not enough; rather, he is forced to contend with antagonism from within, that even his attempts to alter his heart are stymied by that nature.That you have at all thought seriously about the phrase I above posted suggests to me that it has done at least the job of provoking thought, and therefore in spite of you, my purpose has been fulfilled.
Also, I may suggest you do not look at me as the bitter tyrant, exhausted by his obdurate underlings, but rather take me for the very git in question, whose rebellion has painted all ways sticky with bloody regret.
>>24846479You have succeeded in revealing yourself a pretentious twat.
>>24846510You'll be okay, I trust?
>>24846523Honestly I'm not ok rn, but there's not much to do about it.
>>24846527I'm sorry, I know a little of how it feels. The last fortnight has been shit.I hope it gets better for you though. Seriously.
>>24846449Yeah, this is fucking embarrassing. Op should leave forever.
>>24846557It won't happen, you'll just have to suffer on, suffer on. Day by day perhaps, you will come to grips with my presence here, and then you may even be stronger for it. As such, you're very welcome for the opportunity.
>>24843543Hm this is quite thought provoking. Is this translated from Nietzsche's aphorisms in Beyond Good and Evil? Maybe not, the delicate interplay between the two clauses interlinked by the semicolon is too good to be a translation, let alone Nietzsche. Is it from someone of the Avant Garde meditating on the tragedy of rebellion and self destruction? One thinks of Milton's Satan, but even his prose was not this.
>>24848183at least you'll always respect me, roboto-chan
>>24843543Your shits all retarded and you write like a fag.
>>24848354doesn't that just mean you're a retard from the future?
